Can't believe I'm writing this, but disappointed in JK today

[RobynMiller]

I know she is just one person but her tweets today are really undermining the whole GC argument.

Link: https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2046948644373274709

'Nothing's changed. I was being honest about how I feel about an individual trans woman I know, who was a gay man pre-transition, and who I met for the first time post-transition. Objectively speaking, she has physical characteristics that make it fairly obvious she wasn't born female, but she's a gentle, funny person I've never referred to as anything other than 'she' and 'her'. I find it perfectly easy to reconcile my fond feelings towards her, and my experience of her as someone with very female-coded energy, with a belief that she hasn't literally changed sex (and incidentally, she doesn't believe she's literally changed sex, either).'

Basically, someone asked her about the trans identified male she mentioned in her 2020 essay and this was her response.

Does she not realise there can be NO EXCEPTIONS? Give an inch they'll take a mile and all that. It doesn't matter that he is gentle and funny or that he has very female-coded energy whatever the hell that means.

This does make it seem like when she calls TIMs out she is now doing it maliciously as she is perfectly happy to play pretend if she likes them enough.

Just so frustrating as it basically says that 'we could all play along with TRAs just fine and are choosing not to because we're such meanies 😡'

To use cross sex pronouns for trans people because you like them or because you see it as respectful automatically classes anyone who doesn't conform as disliking and disrespecting said trans person.

But surely those people do dislike/disrespect said trans person? If they liked and respected them, they'd call them she if they were asked to?

It is not about the individual person. That's the point. To call a man She is to lie and to set the groundwork for 'so called' trans rights to our spaces.

Calling them she is treating them as women in society. It is not a hard leap for them to turn around and say, well since you treat me like a woman in these ways I should be treated as one in all ways. And what argument do you really have to fall back on then? You are the one who blurred the boundary. Will your reply be, No you idiot, obviously I was just lying to you. That's cruel and a rug pull on an already vulnerable person.

Are you confusing me with another poster? I’ve not been commenting on her decision to use female pronouns for her friend or her decision to publicise this. I’ve been commenting that her saying that ‘female-coded energy’ makes it easier for her to use female pronouns is inconsistent with a sex realist view. As far as I’m aware, the ‘female-coded energy’ angle is not something she’s talked about before so yes I am surprised. How is this dishonest of me?

Agree. She's usually so careful with her words, and I hate 'female coded energy'. 'Coded' has annoying connotations of something being genetically encoded too.

She could have just described her friend as a gentle person.

Why?

Why does it have to be a competition of who a person respects more : themselves and their own needs or a friend who is making an unreasonable demand that the other person act as if the friend’s subjective reality is material reality?

If they liked and respected them, they'd call them she if they were asked to?

Why would you respect a man who asked you to lie and lie in a way that was sexist and destroyed women’s ability to identify as a distinct category in life and in law?

Human interactions aren't always black or white - dislike or like. I am completely indifferent to most people and will not change my language for them. Doesn't mean I dislike them. I couldn't care enough to alter my general day to day life for them is more accurate.

Plus the safeguarding implications are a big factor plus the cognitive dissonance and potential impact on those with disabilities. Plus the associated death threats and trying to get women sacked. But it doesn't mean dislike or disrespect. It means I don't agree it's a reasonable demand (in fact I think it's unreasonable and unhealthy even for those asking for it) and I don't think pronouns can be demanded in English grammar as it currently exists. They are in the gift of the observer / speaker based on their experience of reality.

I object to being told that wrong sex pronouns are a sign of 'respect'. They aren't. That's some fucked up sense of respect if you need to lie to people to demonstrate it.

But presented as 'I choose to use them in this case', with the understanding that everyone else is free to do what sits right for them, without censure - fine.

I used to think it was quite OK to use "preferred pronouns" in social situations as it was somehow different. I don't think that any more. I don't think we can pretend that anyone has changed sex, and referring to a man as a woman, even if we think that man is lovely and means no-one any harm, is endorsing a lie. Who am I to judge where to draw the line between a lovely, kind, gentle trans-identifying man who somehow deserves cross-sex pronouns, and an entitled and/or predatory and/or fetishistic man who wants at best to colonise our spaces? And if I refer to him as a woman, I'm making it harder for other women to maintain their boundaries and speak as they find, without being called a bigot.

I don't want to cause gratuitous offence, so I don't use any pronouns for trans-identifying people in my friendship circle. But I won't pretend they've changed sex, or go along with using sex-based language inaccurately.

So yes, I disagree with JKR on this one. But I know that it's taken me a while to get where I am, and I'm not into policing another woman's right to speak. She's just another woman, not a goddess, and I can think she's wrong sometimes without it getting to me. (See also: I'm one of the few people in GC-land who hated that picture on the yacht with the cigar, and she and I both survived my disapproval.)

I think there’s a tiny number of exceptions where I’d use wrong sex pronouns- a child’s good friend is one example.
it was the “feminine-coded energy” that shocked me.

Why would you use then for your child’s friend? Why not use their name instead and not embed the lie?

IMHO what really undermines the GC movement is saying 'they're all evil' I believe the overwhelming majority aren't out to stamp women under their massive stiletto heels. I also believe they can't use the facilities marked for women and that very few of them probably want to.

Having been in that situation on a number of different friends, it is possible to maintain accuracy by not using wrong sex language. Names can be used wherever possible.

It is also very important that you speak to the child’s parent about it.

And we don't want to be like them.

Did I miss it in a fast-moving page, or did nobody yet point out JKR's responses to feedback some of which is similar to what has been said here?

https://nitter.poast.org/jk_rowling/status/2047259862472462346#m

Trying to dictate how other people express themselves provides a delicious opportunity to chide and correct and to demonstrate one's own purity and righteousness - as indeed you're currently demonstrating - but they achieve nothing except making the language police feel good about themselves.

https://nitter.poast.org/jk_rowling/status/2047232085111300193#m

Some gender critical people seem to think that demanding we all use correct sex pronouns will return the world to sanity. This is an attempt to make the tail wag the dog. You cannot fight linguistic prescription with more linguistic prescription, and no rights campaign can succeed if its adherents are more interested in creating a purity spiral than allowing the smallest space for nuance or for the complexities of human nature and feelings.

Indeed, this is another purity spiral that the opposition is regularly (and with good reason) accused of.

Calling them she is treating them as women in society.

No it isn't, it's calling them she. Not everything is that deep.

It is not a hard leap for them to turn around and say, well since you treat me like a woman in these ways I should be treated as one in all ways. And what argument do you really have to fall back on then?

They can say whatever they want, I will not treat them like a woman in the legal or biological sense, because they are not a woman. Nothing I call them out of politeness or kindness will change that.

Calling men ‘she’ destroys the meaning of the word ‘she’ - it ceases to refer to females. There is then no word to refer to females that way. Who benefits from that?

They’re all grown up. I use the wrong sex pronoun when talking to my grown up child about a friend: “is he enjoying his new job?” etc. It would be clunky and cause friction and the individual is a harmless lovely female. I would struggle to indulge a male.
When meeting in person there’s no need for pronouns.

Yes, YOU do.

If she chooses to do otherwise it's literally none of your business.

JK made it perfectly clear in her post that she doesn't believe her friend has changed sex, and neither do they.

What words she chooses to use to address that person is 100% her choice.

Because I don't believe they're asking me to lie.

Asking me to lie would be asking me to agree that they were a woman. Or that they should enjoy the legal rights and protections women do.

If she chooses to [use the pronouns] it's literally none of your business.

Hang on, JKR has literally gone on twitter to explain to the world why she uses she-her pronouns for her male friend. She's deliberately made her reasoning for this a subject for discussion and debate.

This isn't us invading her privacy, we are effectively accepting her invitation to consider her views on this matter and form an opinion on them.

Should you speak more than one language - German in particular springs to mind - the debate over pronouns may become less charged for you.

Meanwhile, there is a difference between trans people who are just cracking on with their lives and trans activists who fetishise the crossing of women’s - or indeed men’s - boundaries.

I agree, there is a difference, @KTheGrey

Because saying “is peter enjoying Peter’s new job” is clunky and would come across as confrontational. I don’t want that when chatting with my child. We have different views and I try to respect that.